Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836603000205 |
| Published date | 01 April 1966 |
| Date | 01 April 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judicial Committee of the
Privy
Council
EXTENUATION BY PROVOCATION: NOT RAISED AS A DEFENCE
Rolle v. The Queen
THE question raised in this appeal from
the
Supreme
Court of the Bahama Islands, although it touched on a
provision of the local Penal Code, is
just
as likely to arise in
England in connection with provocation as a defence reducing
murder to manslaughter (1965, 1 W.L.R. 1341).
The
appel-
lant's defence to a charge of murder was self-defence
but
the
jury
found
him
Guilty.
The
Judicial Committee substituted
averdict of guilty of manslaughter because the trial judge had
not given the
jury
adirection on provocation as a possible
defence to the graver charge.
The
appellant called at the house of Pand demanded
the
return of tools belonging to him. A neighbour, G, on hearing
the
appellant using offensive language to P, remonstrated with
the
appellant.
There
followed an angry altercation in
the
street during which G picked up a piece of wood and with it
struck
the
first blow, hitting the appellant on his left cheek
bone, whereupon the appellant took out an ice-pick from his
belt or pocket and stabbed G, piercing his heart. G died soon
afterwards.
The
appellant, not knowing
that
he had killed G,
walked home.
The
appellant was tried for the murder of G
and the judge directed the
jury
that, if they found
that
the
appellant acted in self-defence and did not use force extending
beyond the amount and kind of force reasonably necessary for
that purpose, the harm caused by him was not unlawful and
the
proper verdict would be not guilty,
but
if they found the
harm was unlawful,
but
that
he did not intentionally cause the
death of G, the proper verdict would be guilty of manslaughter.
As there was no mention of extenuation by provocation in the
summing up, it is probable that matters of extenuation were
109
To continue reading
Request your trial